Having served on the Professional Staff of the House Committee on Rules, known as “The Speakers Committee”, I learned the power of the “Speech and Debate Clause.”
Essentially that gives Constitutional Protection for our elected Legislators to pretty much say anything that pops into their heads and remain judgment proof.
I also learned as the Professional Staff member with the Impeachment Inquiry, that just like an FBI Special Agent, it was against the law to lie to me as a staff member as I investigated the attempt by the PRC to offer bribes within our political process.
Before discussing emerging hard evidence that throws “shade” on the veracity of Democrats, their Staffs, gossiping enablers and a much broken press corps, several contextual points should be made.
First, members of the House and Senate can at times can act like lemmings with a group think mentality running over a cliff into a foggy sea of delusion.
And secondly and most importantly, a few have a very nasty character trait that anyone is expendable to save their seat.
Everyone who are NOT elected representatives in the Judge Kavanaugh conformation process should be very cautious on how far they go in this horrific vilification cycle, because they can face significant legal peril.
Without deep diving on the almost hourly swirling of “facts,” two examples are enough to illustrate the point about the threat facing those giving testimony before Congress.
WSJ reporter Kimberly Strassel, is very well respected and an extremely precise “real news” reporter, who raises a point that someone is clearly lying.
Remember, it is not against the law to lie to the press, but once lies, not just statements made in a state of “confusion,” enter into an FBI or Senate legislative process one has crossed over into felony territory.
Kimberley Strassel Retweeted Aaron Blake
1) Whoops on your part. It would seem her legal team is changing the story as it goes. (bold aded ET) Because here is the text from her letter to Feinstein: “The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.”
2) So, her letter says five people. Therapist notes say five people. Your reporter, @emmersbrown, emails Judge saying five people. But now that the genders don’t all match up, the other side is saying, well, actually, six people. Again, who is the mysterious sixth person?
A second example, of a possible felony, is the robust discussion of the different fonts being evident on the now public letter, so was there a “first” letter signed and submitted that had to get a “do over?”
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years
If the FBI or Senate investigators are called on to get to the bottom of what happened, then everyone else connected to the “raw file” accusations would be interviewed.
With the great 21st Century technological power of collecting telephone metadata and emails, once the terms of full disclosure are assured, additional pertinent information might be brought to light.
All the e-mails and phone logs with respect to the victim and others in this serious accusation should be investigated.
This could shed sunlight on whether there was any “editorial” process in play or a structured P.R. roll-out strategy being executed.
As we learned from the Strzok-Page media leak strategy, phone connections and emails to reporters might be of interest.
Professor Ford has an attorney, and like separation of powers and Fourth Amendment protections, attorney-client privilege is sacred – unless one is Special Counsel Mueller.
However, prior to hiring her attorney, investigators could discover how and when that lawyer got recommended and what was said about the case by those outside attorney-client privilege.
Do the Democrats, so anxious to demand an FBI investigation, really want to open Pandora’s Box?
Senators can harmlessly walk away, at any time, from those committing crimes for a perceived “greater good.”
The old advice, “Be careful what you wish for,” might be worth consideration.
Especially as hard evidence is now being made public.
Our bedrock American character trait is special admiration, for an individual such as Judge Kavanaugh hanging tough and always as once said on TV in the Fifties; “fighting for truth, justice and the American way.”